CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

242 ITR 114High Court2000#366 most cited

What is CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund or ESI, are deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act if paid before the due date for filing the return of income, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective welfare fund statute.

238

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. · 242 ITR 114 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution deduction · provident fund · ESI · payment due date · return filing date · welfare fund

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 43section 36india

Judgments citing CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.

ITO-Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Glory Knitwears Pvt.Ltd, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 328/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…evelopments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs…

Arun Rawat, Baddi vs. CIT Appeal, Faceless

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 179/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4-2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) an…

Devi Shanker, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 250/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Group Zero ITO 43, Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Vs. Ward-6(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 0698 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 310/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Karni Kehar Security Co-operati…

Karni Kehar Security Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 250/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Group Zero ITO 43, Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Vs. Ward-6(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 0698 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 310/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Karni Kehar Security Co-operati…

Group Zero, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 250/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Group Zero ITO 43, Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Vs. Ward-6(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 0698 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 310/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Karni Kehar Security Co-operati…

Shakti Industries, Ahmedgarh vs. ADIT, CPC/DCIT-Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…evelopments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs…

Kesri Singh, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 19/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return For The Year. Kesri Singh Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 19/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 ACIT, cuke Kesri Singh Mandawa Haveli, SC Road, Vs. Circle-3, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADGPS 6676 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha…

Alsisar Mahal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Amounting To Rs.105036 During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Bade In Law & As Well As On Facts. Alsisar Mahal Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 295/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 ACIT, cuke Alsisar Mahal 1 Alsisar Haveli, Sansar Chander Road, Vs. Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFA 8719 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

M/S Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/DCIT, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

The Earth House Resorts LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2022[2019-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 26/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ DCIT, Cr.1 Jaipur, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik?;{k ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 18/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Pratap Technocrats Private Limited ADIT, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, Sivaji Godara Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICP 3621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Y…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…lliamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 it agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that by virtue of the omission of the second proviso and the omission of Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) witho…

Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 382/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 382/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The DCIT, बनाम H. No. 346, CPC, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAUPG1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Neeraj Jain, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR सुनवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 उदघोषणा क…

Shri Vinod Jain, Ludhiana vs. ADIT, CPC/ITO-Ward-7(4), Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Smt. Monvica Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs C…

Mr. Ram Pal Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 387/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 387/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Ram Pal Singh, The Ito, Ward-5(4), बनाम Sco 68, Chandigarh Ist Floor, Sec. 40-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bawps7303F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Ram Pal Singh, The ITO, Ward-5(4), बनाम SCO 68, Chandigarh Ist Floor, Sec. 40-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BAWPS7303F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Anil Batra, Advocate राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR सुनवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 1…